Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Floor Speech

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS -- (Senate - March 29, 2007)

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, 2 months ago, GEN David Petraeus came to Capitol Hill to explain the situation in Baghdad and to outline his plan for improving it. And then we ratified that plan. A Democratic-controlled Senate sent General Petraeus to Iraq--without dissent.

There were no illusions about what the mission would involve: We would demand greater cooperation from the Iraqi Government, and they would get greater security in return. If they gave us room to help secure the capital city, they would have room to build a civil society.

Now that mission is underway. Security is improving and political reforms have followed.

We were told there would be no political reforms in Iraq without basic security first. But if we could secure the capital, then we could expect to see reforms. That is what General Petraeus told us. That is the story he told us we could hope to see unfold, and if it did, we would have reason to hope for success, we would have a chance to win this.

Right now we have that chance. The question is, will we fan this spark of hope or will we smother it?

The Democratic leadership has a different view. They do not seem to think situations can change. They have made no allowance for improvements in Iraq. They call for a change in course, but the only change in course they seem to approve of is retreat.

The bill they sent the President today says one of two things: It says they are either determined to lose this war or they are convinced it is already lost. There is no other way to look at it.

Nothing good can come from this bill. It all but guarantees a delay in the delivery of supplies and equipment to the troops on the ground. It is loaded with pork that has no relation to our efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan. And it includes a deadline for evacuation that amounts to sending a ``save the date'' card to al-Qaida--a date that is not tied to circumstances on the ground, a date that is completely arbitrary--pulled out of thin air--a date the terrorists have already marked on their calendars.

This bill is the document of our defeat. That is why the President has said for weeks he would not sign it. Because it has no chance of becoming law, because the Democrats knew it never had a chance of becoming law, it is nothing more than a political statement--a political statement that says the Democrats have traded in the possibility of military victory for the promise of political victory here at home.

They have said as much. Earlier this week, one of the Democratic leaders said this about the emergency supplemental bill. He said:

It's not one battle. It's a long-term campaign.

So what is the aim of this long-term campaign? To pressure the President to retreat. The Democratic leadership is telling the President to retreat through a spending bill that is meant to deliver emergency equipment and supplies to our troops.

But I ask you: If the war is already lost, if it is already time to declare defeat, then why wait another year to do it? Why not simply vote against funding now? Would anyone disagree that it is wrong to ask American soldiers to stick it out for another year if you think the battle is already over? If Democrats want to end this war, they should vote against funding it. That would clearly end the war. But apparently that is not what is going to happen. They will wait another year. They will supply and equip our soldiers to fight a war they think we have already lost, and they will use the spending bill that funds that extra year of fighting as a vehicle for pork.

There is more than $20 billion of spending in this bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, and most of it simply should not be there.

The senior Senator from Nevada has said repeatedly that this spending bill is serious.

How serious is $2.5 million for tours of the Capitol? Is $3 million for sugarcane serious? Is $22.8 million for geothermal research or $13 million for ewe replacement and retention? Is all of that serious?

This bill was intended to fund and equip American men and women who have left their families to risk their lives overseas. But in some ways, it has become a bit of a joke. It has ballooned into a gravy train for Members. It absurdly broadcasts to our enemies a date certain for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. And it is designed to draw a veto, risking that the very supplies it means to deliver would not even get there in time.

The American people are watching this charade. They have reason to be confused. They even have reasons to be angry.

I am pleased my colleagues voted against this bill to show it is right for the President to veto it and to show we will proudly sustain that veto. Then we can get about our real mission to fund the troops. Let's hope the President gets this bill as quickly as possible, so he can do with it what it deserves. No bill has deserved the veto pen more than this one.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Source